Talktothefinger wrote:You ** that moderate the DP online are really holding on to that double standard and affirmative action frame of mind. Stop leaning left and stop pandering to minorities. I have had multiple comments removed simply because I show the white/non liberal side of the subject when several other sides have had just as many attacks or stereotypes which were reported but not removed. I have had enough of this far left leaning, pro-illegal immigration, tax happy newspaper…..

Are you upset about the comment that we warned you for where you wrote "GAAANG BAAAANG!!! (hope she brings lube)"??? Because if so, I stand firmly behind our moderators on that.

We delete a lot of comments every day, of every political stripe. Just because we delete yours doesn't mean we're biased. It just means you broke the rules and a reader flagged your comment for review.

Happy commenting,Joe

No, I knew that one was out of bounds but it wasn't far off from some other comments on that particular thread that were NOT removed. I am talking about political and racially "sensitive" issues. The moderators there are more lenient on comments posted in favor of or by a "ethnic minority" than you are on caucasians. No one has the right to never be offended.

Frankly, there's a lot more anti-hispanic prejudice on this board than there is pro-hispanic whatever. I'm not even sure what pro-hispanic whatever looks like here -- after we banned ArtStarzz it disappeared from our site.

But, wait -- you're saying we somehow know the race of the commenters on our site? I can assure you: there is no magic skin-sniffing functionality that lets us know when a white person posts a comment. That goes for every other race out there. And, even if there were some crazy way to build that functionality, we wouldn't do it. It just doesn't matter that much.

Just so we are all clear about these new rules, is it appears it is acceptable to the moderators that one can baselessly accuse another of "celebrating the rape" of a young woman, and celebrating the death of a person for political reasons.

Isn't that great! But what ever you do, remember, no personal attacks people!

Perhaps Joe, this provides us with a teachable moment. Why do you think the moderators allow this type of comment while others are banned for so much less?

Smartest Person Ever wrote:I know an authoritarian could never understand this, but there was no lawful issue ordered. Because it's not illegal to sit on a sidewalk. Period.

You're cheering on police brutality, just like you cheered when laura logan was raped, just like you cheered against the 921 victims and their families, just like you cheered when andy rooney died.

Why? Because in the conservative mind, anything bad that happens to a liberal is good. How could you possibly denounce lawlessness while defensing the pig's lawlessness? Because pepper spraying a peaceful citizen is illegal. Period.

Robert J wrote:Just so we are all clear about these new rules, is it appears it is acceptable to the moderators that one can baselessly accuse another of "celebrating the rape" of a young woman, and celebrating the death of a person for political reasons.

Isn't that great! But what ever you do, remember, no personal attacks people!

Perhaps Joe, this provides us with a teachable moment. Why do you think the moderators allow this type of comment while others are banned for so much less?

Smartest Person Ever wrote:I know an authoritarian could never understand this, but there was no lawful issue ordered. Because it's not illegal to sit on a sidewalk. Period.

You're cheering on police brutality, just like you cheered when laura logan was raped, just like you cheered against the 921 victims and their families, just like you cheered when andy rooney died.

Why? Because in the conservative mind, anything bad that happens to a liberal is good. How could you possibly denounce lawlessness while defensing the pig's lawlessness? Because pepper spraying a peaceful citizen is illegal. Period.

A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

I remember the post and you answered it with grace, Robert. Just challenging "perhaps you caN show me where I said that?" puts the onus back on them and the Moderators need not be involved. I really find they don't unless ground rules being broken are brought to their attention. I don't flag unless it is one of our multiple account trolls, or something so hatefully offending of any nature. I have even left a couple of posts calling me derogatory names, thinking it would hurt my widdle feelings as a woman, or one guy saying I was fat and ugly.

When someone attacks like that, you can come out looking better. No one can know what I look like ( though I do have personal friends here), but people can definitely tell what the other poster is like! I suspect that is what tactics were being applied to you, Robert.

Also, as Joe has said, if a poster is offensive, don't engage. It's easer for Mods to just delete a bad post than to be a referee.

But, I'm certainly not the best example!

‎"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~John Adams

Three times. Two in the first 1/hour, then once three - five hours later. It was removed sometime after I made the above post. Its seem making fun of the dead is not OK, calling someone an person will get you banned, but intentionally and maliciously slandering somebody is no big deal.

At least on a Sunday. Which I actually understand, I don't like to work Sunday either. But how such a post is allowed to be made and the person not get banned is a little curious.

Bagz, How long do you think it would the mods to serve you walking papers had you posted such slander?

Three times. Two in the first 1/hour, then once three - five hours later. It was removed sometime after I made the above post. Its seem making fun of the dead is not OK, calling someone an person will get you banned, but intentionally and maliciously slandering somebody is no big deal.

At least on a Sunday. Which I actually understand, I don't like to work Sunday either. But how such a post is allowed to be made and the person not get banned is a little curious.

Bagz, How long do you think it would the mods to serve you walking papers had you posted such slander?

I probably shouldn't comment today, considering I was issued a board warning for simply pointing out inconsistancies in another posters comments. I even linked to the inconsistant previous post.

So, since referenced comparisons are now considered "starting an argument", and there really isn't a ground rule that covers that, I think it's best if I don't give my true opinion of how a slanderous post by me would be addressed by the mods on this particular day.

I just found it somewhat ironic that on the day that I was actually sticking up for the moderation on this thread by asking if you flagged it, a few hours later, I'm slapped with a (IMHO ridiculous) board warning.

A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

Bonecrusher wrote:I guess this is the wrong place to ask, but I can't find "help".I observe posts with images, and there is a button for IMG. How would one include? clicking button does not open an upload dialog.

Either save an image to your profile and link to it, or link to the image with bracketed "img" and "/img" on both sides.

For example, if I want to link to an image I found on google images (has to be 600X600 or smaller) such as:http://www.unicorns.com/images/indigosea2c.jpgI would put the bracketed img /img on both sides of it:[ing] [/ing] (replacing the "m" with an "n")

[ing]http://www.unicorns.com/images/indigosea2c.jpg[/ing] and you get:

If you hit the "quote" button by this post, you will see the actual text used.

A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

Bonecrusher wrote:I guess this is the wrong place to ask, but I can't find "help".I observe posts with images, and there is a button for IMG. How would one include? clicking button does not open an upload dialog.

Also, you can not post a picture directly from your computer, only the web. You can, however, put your picture on a "photobucket" account, or something similar, then post.

The BBCode under the smilies have all the directions to put color, images, and fonts on posts.

‎"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~John Adams

I posted a NamethatToon caption that included the word " ." The word is listed in Webster's Dictionary and the Thesaurus. Should I have used a lower case "j"? The cartoon shows a donkey, which I understand to be a domesticated _. As for relevance, what is the Republican party symbol, an Ostrich?

Robert, just a quick quiz, which party in this State has the Governors mansion and the Senate? Oh yeah the Democrats. So it looks like they won this AT THE BALLOT BOX, a fact hyper partisan idiots tend to forget. Might look at the Senate race as well, where the Democrat won. I understand that all 14 people you know are far right Republicans, but the rest of the state has a broader range of thought.

So if I understand the enforcement correctly, calling someone an person get you a warning, but calling someone a hyper partisan idiots is A-OK.

Help us understand Joe. Cause I seen nothing but one long (uninvited) personal insult and taunt and apparently the moderator, after several hours of deliberation, sees everything is allright. Is this true?

Provided we confine our calling someone an person to "hyper-partisan idiots", everything is peachy? Good to know.

Just looking for some guidance about what is and what is not acceptable.

We were swamped on abuse reports yesterday, so the lag between filing and reviewing was as high as five hours.

I looked, and we deleted the comment you referenced 10 minutes before you wrote your message here.

Also, Robert, in the future: Instead of replying to comments like that, which leaves traces of those comments in the threads on our system (where sometimes they spawn a new life of their own), just report it for abuse.

Thanks,Joe

Robert J wrote:

by opinionatedcolo on Today, 5:18 pm

Robert, just a quick quiz, which party in this State has the Governors mansion and the Senate? Oh yeah the Democrats. So it looks like they won this AT THE BALLOT BOX, a fact hyper partisan idiots tend to forget. Might look at the Senate race as well, where the Democrat won. I understand that all 14 people you know are far right Republicans, but the rest of the state has a broader range of thought.

So if I understand the enforcement correctly, calling someone an person get you a warning, but calling someone a hyper partisan idiots is A-OK.

Help us understand Joe. Cause I seen nothing but one long (uninvited) personal insult and taunt and apparently the moderator, after several hours of deliberation, sees everything is allright. Is this true?

Provided we confine our calling someone an person to "hyper-partisan idiots", everything is peachy? Good to know.

Just looking for some guidance about what is and what is not acceptable.

We were swamped on abuse reports yesterday, so the lag between filing and reviewing was as high as five hours.

I looked, and we deleted the comment you referenced 10 minutes before you wrote your message here.

Also, Robert, in the future: Instead of replying to comments like that, which leaves traces of those comments in the threads on our system (where sometimes they spawn a new life of their own), just report it for abuse.

Thanks,Joe

Will do! At some level I am really just trying to figure out what is wrong and what is right. When posts sit for hours, I just assume they are ok since you usually don't take that long. All my busts have come within minutes of my posting. Likewise, I've seen you pull posts in less than a minute before.

Someone's time stamp must be broken because I copied that post and pasted it here. I'm not sure you could have deleted it before I copied it? Not that it matters, the important thing is that our were able to deal with in the manner you felt best and I, and perhaps others, are now more knowledgeable about what flies and what gets flushed.

Just for the sake of clarification...I was informed that the rule on profanity used George Carlin's seven forbidden words as a rough guide.

One of those seven words is p**s.

That one seems a little outdated. Is this word allowed? I don't want to flag posts that include the word if it is considered okay.

Thank you for your time.

edit: for the record, the word in question is 'piss', it is allowed, and it's hilarious that somebody is so shallow as to thumbs-down my legitimate question.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”― Isaac Asimov